No, the course work should have been difficult enough to require you to work to keep up. The pace of education in this country is pitiful. Most students should fail.
Thinkers will always think, we don't need to create them. We need to take those people who would otherwise choose to produce nothing and train them to contribute to society.
I would posit that a traditional GPA structure reflects both work ethic and inherent ability. The corruption of our education system has removed the necessity of personal capacity from the struggle to achieve. I absolutely agree that talent is an important issue, and that is why classes should be harder. That is why more students should fail.
I would rather have a hard working and brilliant individual than one who lacks either of those traits. The system proposed in Pittsburg elevates students who lack either of those capacities and increases the difficulty of separating the wheat from the chaff.
No one should pass just for being smart. Good grades need to reflect more than just intelligence. Similarly, I absolutely agree with your implication that no one should pass just for working hard, but that component must be measured as well.
As a side note, it has always been my understanding that to become a medical or legal professional, a solid GPA (now generally considered to reflect work ethic) and decent LCAT/MCAT scores ("what you know") are both necessary.
Yes, you are absolutely right, talent does matter. But inherent capacities are reflected in a traditional grading structure. Classes should be harder, more students should fail, and their GPAs will reflect the mixture of their natural talent and their work ethic.
By giving everyone a chance to pass, you are undermining the relevance of a GPA, and those who lack either capacity or desire will be less distinguishable from those who possess both.
As much as it would be nice for learning to matter, from an real-world standpoint doing the work is more important. Regardless of level of knowledge, I want someone coming out of an academic institution to have a GPA reflective of their professional dedication, not their ability to slack off for a year and cram it all in in one night. I don't care what you know, I only care how hard you'll work. If you're willing to work, it's easy to learn.
This is a frightening stopgap to a rising lack of work ethic in this country.
I dunno about you, but I got rid of copy protected floppies back in the day by putting duct tape over the little hole.
I'll buy DRM'd crap when it provided DRM'd media surpassing the easily accessible free media, such as BluRay. Encrypted media requiring essentially proprietary hardware to read, ya, I'll call that DRM.
It is quite likely a function of both factors, but that is the easy way out of this argument isn't it?
I would say extreme myopia is inarguably more common than in the "pre-spectacle" era, whereas minor vision difficulties would likely have always existed and are simply less tolerated in the modern era as you suggest.
Fortunately for me, this theory is extremely vague, and almost impossible to realistically quantify and measure, and thus a solid, cogent argument either way is beyond the scope of this forum.
Myopia is not a survival benefit, but since the invention of spectacles it has risen to be so common that good vision is considered somewhat rare. Perhaps it is our society that has led this to occur, and not a possible survival benefit.
I also agree with the astrology comment. It is really a silly debate. I would still want my genetically modified grandchildren to have the learn-from-your-mistakes gene nevertheless.
This technology will ultimately be available, and mankind will never learn to cope with it until it is a reality.
If we hadn't pushed so hard for nuclear weapons (which have killed far far fewer people than, say, firebombs or religion), we wouldn't have had the cleanest safest source of energy on the planet as soon as we did. (Note: windmills are a joke, and solar panels don't last nearly long enough for their initial cost.)
If only there were a way to make some dastardly weapon out of geothermal power...
Ultimately, as long as you are on US soil, you have the right to due process no matter who you blew up. Of course, get caught by us anywhere else and you could find yourself in Guantanamo. I believe that is what you are talking about, concerning "terrorists."
I've gotten a few dozen replies to my short tempered cheap shot, and I think this will be the only one I reply to, so please read this. I know I'll start to rant, but bear with me =].
CmdrTaco's complaint against Blizzard was not their abuse of power. It certainly comes off that way, but it is not. It is clearly an attempt to set a discussion in motion concerning identity creation in a virtual world, a major topic in modern academia. A friend of mine just finished a thesis on it.
In fact, I created a character in an online game, only to have my account accidently destroyed without returning the name, meaning I had to create a new name. No one knew who I was. It was startling. What I'm saying here is, I understand that CmdrTaco is commenting how closely your name is tied to identity in the virtual realm.
After reading his piece, I still felt a strong thread of irony in his example. Near the end, he talks about how the system can at times feel arbitrary. That was unnecessary for his point, and IMNSHO, petty bitching. I should not have acted so rashly, and weighed his thoughts more carefully before responding. The nature of this forum benefits those who think and speak quickly, not carefully. Sometimes I receive a positive response from the community, sometimes a negative. My comment is meant as a gut response to his article. When I read what he wrote, that was the first thing I thought of. I felt it was humorously enough phrased that others might enjoy it, so I posted it.
And I still stand by my statement. There is a definite value in a large part of his piece, but the remainder is unnecessary to the topic. That remainder is what I am addressing. If he were to submit that to me to edit, I would say the same thing. When he thrusts a rant like that upon the community, the community will respond in kind.
To dissect it further, it his his paragraph concerning the ambiguity of the naming rules in WoW that I refer to when I refer to an abuse of power. He argues that a GM uses those rules, they are poorly phrased enough to allow a gross misuse of the system. Thus, his position as an editor on Slashdot gives him likewise power. His use of that power to (perhaps rightfully) post whatever he likes is just as much an abuse as the GM forcing him to remove his Cmdr title. In case you haven't picked up on it, what I'm saying is that perhaps neither is an abuse of power.
The final dissection lies in the "livejournal" comment. Slashdot appears professional. In reality, it is (or so I hear) a for-profit owned by some corporation, but run mostly for fun by some geeks. It is CmdrTaco's breaking of that facade of professionalism that I take issue with. A readership so large creates a responsibility for consistency. When CmdrTaco uses the forum for his perfectly legitimate article about identity formation in a virtual realm, that is fine. When, in that article, he wanders off of that topic and whines about his own loss of identity, rather that focusing on the concept of identity creation, he destroys that level of professionalism. That kind of writing is perfectly acceptable in an online journal run by some geeks. It is grossly misplaced in a news site that wishes to even appear concerned about actual news.
You might notice I talk about my personal experience with the topic at hand in various parts of this response, but I do not dwell in it. Anywho, it was all really meant mostly ironically, hinting at serious critique.
Sorry for being unclear, I was in a bad mood and was making a snide comment on:
A lot of people use laptops at home where the weight of the machine and a mains supply aren't a problem.
My short and rude argument was that if the weight of the machine and a mains supply aren't a problem, why not just buy an equivalent desktop system for $1000 less.
I'm not normally so Trollish, I am sorry =[. I just cannot see the benefit of wasting money on inferior systems simply for an illusion of convenience. In a job where you have to move around and take critical data with you, a laptop is certainly necessary, but paying $1000 more just so you can check your email while you watch TV? That seems needless.
I often use The Gimp for simpler web-oriented photo editing, and bash scripts using convert and various other utils for large batches of images. I believe Gimp supports CLI scripting, but I don't think it's very advanced.
You must know about Gimp if you have a Slashdot account.
Slashdot Mirror
FDR would have changed everything, if it weren't for the judiaciary and the seperation of powers. He probably came closest, though.
Maybe your examples are an indication of the symptoms created by flawed practices such as those suggested in Pittsburg.
I also freely admit that I am heavily using the standard Slashdot slippery slope.
No, the course work should have been difficult enough to require you to work to keep up. The pace of education in this country is pitiful. Most students should fail.
Thinkers will always think, we don't need to create them. We need to take those people who would otherwise choose to produce nothing and train them to contribute to society.
I would posit that a traditional GPA structure reflects both work ethic and inherent ability. The corruption of our education system has removed the necessity of personal capacity from the struggle to achieve. I absolutely agree that talent is an important issue, and that is why classes should be harder. That is why more students should fail.
I would rather have a hard working and brilliant individual than one who lacks either of those traits. The system proposed in Pittsburg elevates students who lack either of those capacities and increases the difficulty of separating the wheat from the chaff.
No one should pass just for being smart. Good grades need to reflect more than just intelligence. Similarly, I absolutely agree with your implication that no one should pass just for working hard, but that component must be measured as well.
As a side note, it has always been my understanding that to become a medical or legal professional, a solid GPA (now generally considered to reflect work ethic) and decent LCAT/MCAT scores ("what you know") are both necessary.
Yes, you are absolutely right, talent does matter. But inherent capacities are reflected in a traditional grading structure. Classes should be harder, more students should fail, and their GPAs will reflect the mixture of their natural talent and their work ethic.
By giving everyone a chance to pass, you are undermining the relevance of a GPA, and those who lack either capacity or desire will be less distinguishable from those who possess both.
As much as it would be nice for learning to matter, from an real-world standpoint doing the work is more important. Regardless of level of knowledge, I want someone coming out of an academic institution to have a GPA reflective of their professional dedication, not their ability to slack off for a year and cram it all in in one night. I don't care what you know, I only care how hard you'll work. If you're willing to work, it's easy to learn.
This is a frightening stopgap to a rising lack of work ethic in this country.
Inconceivable!
I dunno about you, but I got rid of copy protected floppies back in the day by putting duct tape over the little hole.
I'll buy DRM'd crap when it provided DRM'd media surpassing the easily accessible free media, such as BluRay. Encrypted media requiring essentially proprietary hardware to read, ya, I'll call that DRM.
Zero factorial is one.
I'm fairly certain the OP actually did mean links.
DVD quality takes less than 1/4 of a DVDs size. On 2 gigs you could get maybe half a nearly bluray quality movie, properly encoded.
'kinds of people searching same kind of people'
It's not terribly important, but it may interest you to know the common English saying is: "Birds of a feather flock together."
It is quite likely a function of both factors, but that is the easy way out of this argument isn't it?
I would say extreme myopia is inarguably more common than in the "pre-spectacle" era, whereas minor vision difficulties would likely have always existed and are simply less tolerated in the modern era as you suggest.
Fortunately for me, this theory is extremely vague, and almost impossible to realistically quantify and measure, and thus a solid, cogent argument either way is beyond the scope of this forum.
Myopia is not a survival benefit, but since the invention of spectacles it has risen to be so common that good vision is considered somewhat rare. Perhaps it is our society that has led this to occur, and not a possible survival benefit.
I also agree with the astrology comment. It is really a silly debate. I would still want my genetically modified grandchildren to have the learn-from-your-mistakes gene nevertheless.
In other news, last year's Super Bowl was actually two guys playing Madden '08.
Resistance to an idea won't prevent its reality.
This technology will ultimately be available, and mankind will never learn to cope with it until it is a reality.
If we hadn't pushed so hard for nuclear weapons (which have killed far far fewer people than, say, firebombs or religion), we wouldn't have had the cleanest safest source of energy on the planet as soon as we did. (Note: windmills are a joke, and solar panels don't last nearly long enough for their initial cost.)
If only there were a way to make some dastardly weapon out of geothermal power...
Are you telling me my computer is going to go senile and there's nothing I can do about it?
Speaking of senile, I wonder if god will give me a refund on grandma...
As the article states, this is in response to the rising civil liberties violations thanks to the U SAP AT RIOT Act.
Ultimately, as long as you are on US soil, you have the right to due process no matter who you blew up. Of course, get caught by us anywhere else and you could find yourself in Guantanamo. I believe that is what you are talking about, concerning "terrorists."
I know, sometimes I'm a little too hot-headed. I think it stems to anger management issues. Anywho, you don't care =p. I'm just sayin I agree.
I've gotten a few dozen replies to my short tempered cheap shot, and I think this will be the only one I reply to, so please read this. I know I'll start to rant, but bear with me =].
CmdrTaco's complaint against Blizzard was not their abuse of power. It certainly comes off that way, but it is not. It is clearly an attempt to set a discussion in motion concerning identity creation in a virtual world, a major topic in modern academia. A friend of mine just finished a thesis on it.
In fact, I created a character in an online game, only to have my account accidently destroyed without returning the name, meaning I had to create a new name. No one knew who I was. It was startling. What I'm saying here is, I understand that CmdrTaco is commenting how closely your name is tied to identity in the virtual realm.
After reading his piece, I still felt a strong thread of irony in his example. Near the end, he talks about how the system can at times feel arbitrary. That was unnecessary for his point, and IMNSHO, petty bitching. I should not have acted so rashly, and weighed his thoughts more carefully before responding. The nature of this forum benefits those who think and speak quickly, not carefully. Sometimes I receive a positive response from the community, sometimes a negative. My comment is meant as a gut response to his article. When I read what he wrote, that was the first thing I thought of. I felt it was humorously enough phrased that others might enjoy it, so I posted it.
And I still stand by my statement. There is a definite value in a large part of his piece, but the remainder is unnecessary to the topic. That remainder is what I am addressing. If he were to submit that to me to edit, I would say the same thing. When he thrusts a rant like that upon the community, the community will respond in kind.
To dissect it further, it his his paragraph concerning the ambiguity of the naming rules in WoW that I refer to when I refer to an abuse of power. He argues that a GM uses those rules, they are poorly phrased enough to allow a gross misuse of the system. Thus, his position as an editor on Slashdot gives him likewise power. His use of that power to (perhaps rightfully) post whatever he likes is just as much an abuse as the GM forcing him to remove his Cmdr title. In case you haven't picked up on it, what I'm saying is that perhaps neither is an abuse of power.
The final dissection lies in the "livejournal" comment. Slashdot appears professional. In reality, it is (or so I hear) a for-profit owned by some corporation, but run mostly for fun by some geeks. It is CmdrTaco's breaking of that facade of professionalism that I take issue with. A readership so large creates a responsibility for consistency. When CmdrTaco uses the forum for his perfectly legitimate article about identity formation in a virtual realm, that is fine. When, in that article, he wanders off of that topic and whines about his own loss of identity, rather that focusing on the concept of identity creation, he destroys that level of professionalism. That kind of writing is perfectly acceptable in an online journal run by some geeks. It is grossly misplaced in a news site that wishes to even appear concerned about actual news.
You might notice I talk about my personal experience with the topic at hand in various parts of this response, but I do not dwell in it. Anywho, it was all really meant mostly ironically, hinting at serious critique.
You express your anger with abuse of arbitrary power in a virtual realm by abusing your own arbitrary power, in your own personal virtual realm?
I am disappointed in you. Please keep the petty bitching confined to livejournal.
Sorry for being unclear, I was in a bad mood and was making a snide comment on:
A lot of people use laptops at home where the weight of the machine and a mains supply aren't a problem.
My short and rude argument was that if the weight of the machine and a mains supply aren't a problem, why not just buy an equivalent desktop system for $1000 less.
I'm not normally so Trollish, I am sorry =[. I just cannot see the benefit of wasting money on inferior systems simply for an illusion of convenience. In a job where you have to move around and take critical data with you, a laptop is certainly necessary, but paying $1000 more just so you can check your email while you watch TV? That seems needless.
I often use The Gimp for simpler web-oriented photo editing, and bash scripts using convert and various other utils for large batches of images. I believe Gimp supports CLI scripting, but I don't think it's very advanced.
You must know about Gimp if you have a Slashdot account.
Whats "rtbl?"